FilmIndia (1939)

kpril 1939 FILMINDIA ng a picture should be able to say, vithin a reasonable margin, how he public would react to it. ART AND ARITHMETIC The ultimate standard of judgnent, of course, must depend on he individual taste and temperanent of the critic. Art is not lirithmetic that the correct solution n every case must turn out to be ;he same. The films are produced, I with artistic and technical cunning, to appeal to millions. There [ure all sorts of ways of looking at |;hem and of writing about them, i There are poetically inclined critics ho whom the pseudo-mystical atmosphere of Devaki Bose and Barua pictures makes a special appeal, vhile there are others who prefer t;he straightforward approach of i'tfitin Bose and Shantaram. One is fastidious about technical perfection, another (like me) m;\y tpverlook any flaws in photography ! or sound-recording if the film has some originality and its approach flto life and its problem is progressive and realistic. Again, trade paper critics must (to be fair to the exhiDitors who depend on their opinion to book the pictures) keep in view the box-office appeal more than the 'other artistic or technical qualities of a film. But in whichever way he looks at it, a film critic should. ' above all, remain Impartial and provide proper guidance to the film-goer. It is not necessary to be mercilessly critical. At the present stage of our film industry, it would be callous to damn the crude (but, in some ways, promising) productions of small studios, with a stroke of the pen. But the critic owes it to the producer and to the industry to point out avoidable flaws. And, finally, he owes it to the fan to describe the pictures correctly to help him (or her) choose an evening's entertainment. There is a demand for all sorts of films from mythological epics to crime "thrillers". It is the duty of the critic to see that he does not send those who would like "Tukaram" to see "Hunter Wali" and vice versa ! That would be a tragedy and a betrayal of the trust that the public reposes in him. Having thus defined the functions of a film critic let us indulge in a bit of self-criticism and disown certain members of our own fraternity who make no effort to conform to a reasonable standard of criticism. Unfortunately Film journals have sprung up like mushrooms and are conducted, in some instances, by incompetent journalists. All kinds of people have taken to film journalism Romancehungry youths out of college, unsuccessful merchants and even dismissed studio employees with a grudge against some producers. Is it any wonder that we don't get proper film criticism from them ? "CANCEL THE ADVERTISEMENT "! How are we, one may ask, to get rid of bogus critics ? The producers have a set remedy cancel the advertisement! Now it is true that without advertisements a film journal cannot carry on for long. But in actual practice, this policy of stopping the advertisement of any paper which writes against you encourages irresponsible journalism and strikes at the root of independent criticism. It is easy for a journal with no consistent editorial policy to make a Volte Fare and regain lost advertisements by singing the praises of the very people it had previously run down. But it makes the task of independent critics difficult who often find themselves bracketted with such slanderers and blackmailers. On the other hand this policy, however well-intentioned, encourages flattery, undignified subservience and pandering to the slightest whims of producers. In short, it sounds the death-knell of genuine crititicism while failing to check the unwholesome practices in film journalism. What, then, should the producer do ? He should, of course, withdraw patronage from any unscrupulous paper which is guilty of blackmail even if that paper is perpared to praise him and his pictures. Generally speaking, however, the advertisement campaign should be absolutely independent of what a a paper writes or does not write about your productions. Advertisements should be given on the basis of the advertising value of a paper even if that paper has severely criticised your pictures. Have you noticed liquor advertisements appearing in Congress papers, side by side with leading articles supporting Prohibition? Whatever you may say about the consistency of such papers, one cannot help commending the common sense of the firms which pay for advertisement space for its own sake without bothering about the editorial policy of a paper. They are, as advertisers should be, only concerned with the value of a paper as an advertising medium i.e. its circulation. In this respect it will be noticed that the public is the best judge. Investigate the circulation of irresponsible journals and the truth of this assertion will be evident. Indeed, it is only the wronglyplaced patronage of the producers which is responsible for the existence of such a class of film journals. Left to the public, they would soon wither away for they have hardly any sales. Circulation and not the adjectives used for boosting pictures should be the criterion for the producer's advertisement schedule. I have noticed that even some of the most advanced and progressive producers resent independent criticism and try to silence it by all kinds of means. I know of at least two instances when the chief editors of two well-known papers were approached by the producers with a demand that they dismiss their respective film critics for daring to criticise certain films. Threats to stop advertisement art* frequent. In this connection the policy of even certain leading papers to pander to the wishes of their advertisers by publishing laudatory "write-ups" for every 21